Home Cool News Coaxial Reviews Zone Chat Contact Us Sign in

Talkbacks

1st!!
by leobloom
Nov 28th, 2007
07:50:14 AM
Narnia for atheists
by rev_skarekroe
Nov 28th, 2007
07:53:19 AM
That's what I heard.
But ORly sez they want to kill God
by c4andmore
Nov 28th, 2007
07:53:46 AM
I'm there
Just what we need: More CGI animals and fantasy bullshit.
by Nate Champion
Nov 28th, 2007
08:02:15 AM
I hope this movie bombs. This is the kind of film that has ruined cinema over the years -- spectacle over story, cgi over imagination. And from the director of American Pie, no less. Way to go!
First reviewer
by The Seaward
Nov 28th, 2007
08:02:33 AM
"The film starts up with a quick overview, using voice-over narration, of the fantasy setting or "universe" that the story is set in. It reminded me a bit of the beginning of some terrible movies, like Jet Lee's One and Reign of Fire" And Fellowship of the Ring?
apparently catholics are pissed about this movie?
by pikagreg
Nov 28th, 2007
08:04:38 AM
how come?
Potter-ish, right?
by Gatsbys West Egg Omlet
Nov 28th, 2007
08:05:14 AM
so is the polar bear gay?
sounds like shite
by ironic_name
Nov 28th, 2007
08:07:50 AM
ok cg doth not a movie make.
@Nate Champion
by mooseaka
Nov 28th, 2007
08:08:43 AM
If this movie was an original screenplay, you might have a point, but as a book adaptation, you're dead wrong. The book is chock with imagination and story, and from everything I heard, they almost had to downplay the some of the imaginative elements to make the movie understandable to the mainstream audience (like what they did with LOTR). If anything, blame the mediocre Narnia movie for stealing HDM's thunder two years ago. There weren't even Polar Bears in that story, but they added them to the movie, deliberately to undermine HDM which was in production.

As for the director, Weitz also directed "About a Boy" which might be one of smartest comedies about what it means to love somebody that I've ever seen. I think he has it in him to make this work.

Glad you like the first two books, Quint...
by Abin Sur
Nov 28th, 2007
08:09:22 AM
Because the third one is a real shit-burger. Hopefully it won't be the same if the movie gets made.
My Mom's church has been urged to boycott this...
by Nice Marmot
Nov 28th, 2007
08:13:21 AM
...I had heard that the Bible thumpers would be boycotting it, even though the religious subject matter was cut from the flick altogether (pussies), but I was surprised to hear it's already spread to a tiny church in podunk West Virginia. My wife and I are big fans of the books (bring on the bashing of books 2 & 3), but I'm not one bit excited for this movie. And am I the only one that pictured Lyra's Oxford and London looking just like the Oxford and London of our world? Or is the gigantic, shiny Oz-tropolis I'm seeing in the trailers and previews what you pictured?
f you use this call me Skillet. signed-Johnny K
by ironic_name
Nov 28th, 2007
08:13:49 AM
heh.
The Catholic Church is calling for a boycott
by I Dunno
Nov 28th, 2007
08:19:40 AM
I wasn't planning on seeing it because, you know, it looks so gay but in light of this boycott I think I'll buy a ticket for it and see something else.
Catholic Church boycott.
by CatVutt
Nov 28th, 2007
08:31:31 AM
Hilarious. The so-called 'anti-religion' elements in the books are so heavy-handed and silly they're hardly worth mentioning, let alone getting upset about. This could be a decent entry into the fantasy genre, but I'll probably wait for DVD. And I'd be stunned if anyone bothers to try adapting the other two crapfest books. That's probably why the ending is different.
is it possible...
by God's Brother
Nov 28th, 2007
08:34:03 AM
for Hollywood to actually MAKE a big budget fantasy film, based on exceptional source material, without hobbits, that's actually good and watchable, maybe even worth multiple viewings? I won't judge this film before I see it, but the cynical side of me just knows they've fucked it up somehow. It would be a shame if they did... but then, "From the director of American Pie" never did inspire much confidence. However, We'll see!
I'm going to make a film
by kwisatzhaderach
Nov 28th, 2007
08:38:00 AM
where they have a big battle and destroy the Catholic Church. Seriously, it can only benefit mankind.
Beign a Catholic...
by Anna Valerious
Nov 28th, 2007
08:40:57 AM
I don't blame them, even though Nicole said that she wouldn't have done the film if she thought it was entirely anti-Catholic. So I'm waiting to see what the reviewer in that Catholic newsletter my mom receives says about it. But I feel the book is just thinly disguised rantings of an Atheist against organized religion. Not only that, he gave away the big reveal too soon and it became a drag to read. But why oh why keep vilifying the church? Just because of the one bad apple mentality regarding the pedophiles and the fact we seem strict just breaks my heart. I don't force my beliefs on others, but it's really getting me irritated to see the majority hating us because of certain priests who should've gone under more psychiatric profiling as well as morons like Giselle Bundchen thinking that sex doesn't have consequences. Then again, I liked "The Seeker: The Dark is Rising", which wasn't something that pissed off the churchgoing Catholics like myself.
Would love to see Farmer's "World of Tiers" as a movie.
by Andre the Frog
Nov 28th, 2007
08:50:23 AM
Or even a decent adaption of Riverworld.
Anna Valerious
by Nice Marmot
Nov 28th, 2007
08:52:24 AM
If Pullman were an Atheist, he'd be bashing God. He didn't do that. He bashed corruption in organized religion. You know, puny humans. Not God . . .
I'm on board for anything that pisses off Catholics!
by Trazadone
Nov 28th, 2007
08:54:00 AM
Don't they get it? Their protests have the opposite effect - it's great advertising for the film! This movie was off my radar until I started to hear about the "boycott", now I'll definitely check it out. Are the Catholics worried that their magical and superstitious beliefs can be so easily derailed by a Hollywood fantasy?
Anna Valerious
by ironic_name
Nov 28th, 2007
08:57:07 AM
i think people are against religion because its "cool"..

y'know.. like being emo, or having purple hair.

"like, srsly! lets go to the mall and be different by dressing alike!"

It's not that there are pedophile priests
by I Dunno
Nov 28th, 2007
08:58:35 AM
It's that the entire organization conspired for centuries to cover it up and relocate the kiddie diddlers to keep them out of trouble. How anyone could give them money every week, knowing where it goes is beyond me.

As for the movie or the books or whatever being anti-religion, I haven't read them but so what if they are? Whenever religious people organize a boycott or picket something, it just shows how weak their faith really is that they can't stand to let any dissenting opinion go without trying to stomp it out.

Then again, at least they're not starting riots and blowing themselves up.

see above my last comment for an example
by ironic_name
Nov 28th, 2007
08:59:22 AM
of herd mentality 'individuality'
I'm torn
by Bloo
Nov 28th, 2007
09:02:30 AM
the previews do not appel to me and the first reviewer mentioning the voice over explanation doesn't bolster my confiedence any as they are doing a similar thing in the previews (i.e. "imagine a world where witches are real..."), in fact when I heard about the book series I thought it was simply an effort to cash in on the growing fantasy market spurned on by Harry Potter. Kinda like the books Shadowmancer and Wormwood where a Christian Brit's answer to Potter that, while good, didn't capture the hearts and attentions like Potter did, same as that Irish, I believe, book series Artimes Fowl. Wasn't Miramax supposed to make that into a movie as the books were all published by Miramax books. Or The Thief Lord? Again it all seemed to me like an attempt to cash in, get your message across, and hope to collect the cash.

one other question, are the daemons pronounced "day-mons" or "dee-mons" just curious because I've heard it both ways

The catholics aren't dumb...
by UltimaRex
Nov 28th, 2007
09:03:11 AM
The advertisement works both ways...
26th
by dirtsandwich
Nov 28th, 2007
09:04:30 AM
Damn!
Nice Marmot and I Duno
by Bloo
Nov 28th, 2007
09:07:32 AM
Nice, actually PUllman is an Athesist, again I haven't read the books so I'm sure I'll be corrected here, but in the 3rd book don't they kill God?

I Duno, I'm a Christian, Protestant pentecostal, and it really irritates me when the Christians get in their herd pack mentality, if you think that people don't need to see the movie that's fine, tell them not to see the movie, but to organize boycotts and protests in front of theatres is stupid in my opinon. Same with the efforts to stop people from saying "Happy Holidays" and have them say "merry Christmas", yes I agree that noone should be punished for saying Merry Christmas but when you make such a big deal about it, it makes you look stupid. I think American Christians get so up in arms about the littlest things instead of doing what Jesus said to do and the early church did and that is showing love.

Marmot
by Anna Valerious
Nov 28th, 2007
09:08:27 AM
Um, did you read "one bad apple mentality" in my post? Look, I don't know of ANY so-called corrupt priests in my area. Hell, I don't know of any corruption aside from pedophiles and the stalker. Though an episode of "South Park" put it best as a lot of them forgot what the bible was about...though this was largely about pedophilia. But why hate God because some of his messengers make mistakes? To err human, to forgive divine.
Pronunciation of Daemon
by The Seaward
Nov 28th, 2007
09:08:29 AM
According to the first book, the word daemon is to be pronounced like the English word demon.
Can't wait
by Omar B
Nov 28th, 2007
09:13:17 AM
I can't wait to see this thing. Sure they cut the ending, changed the name of the bear, left a bunch of people alive. At least the story gets told. Praise Hail Satan.
Pullman is not Anti-catholic...
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
09:15:44 AM
...so much as he is anti-God. His hatred of the Catholic church is the basis for his atheism.

"My books are about killing God," he says, which has been recognized as not-the-ideal-sales-pitch in several places. All of which I find kind of funny, since he shouldn't want to kill what he say he doesn't believe exists, but I get what he is saying. He's trying to kill people's belief in God.

Better men than him have tried that, too.
they don't kill god in the last book
by lex romero
Nov 28th, 2007
09:15:58 AM
it's explictly said in the last book that it's not god, it's just some old angel that claimed to be the creator, and was then imprisoned and used by some evil guy as a "i'm doing evil shit in the name of God". The books aren't anti-christian or anti-God, they're anti-church. It's the institution and the people that use the power of it corruptly that Pullman attacks, not God.
'Bad apples'
by Sepulchrave
Nov 28th, 2007
09:19:40 AM
as a former Catholic schoolboy, I can say with certainty that I don't know ONE anyone who didn't know at least one sexually creepy Catholic priest or Christian brother. Sexual problems related to celibacy are ENDEMIC in every area of the Catholic Church. Some of them were nice enough; sexually repressed homosexuals; others were perverts, but none of them were happy, none of them were living anything LIKE an honest life and many of them were dangerous. Regarding HDM; the main problem here is not that it is going to be anti-religious, nor not anti-religious enough or childish or not spectacular but that AS USUAL, the screenwriters have failed AGAIN to write a script that adequately expresses the philosophical subtleties of the books, which are basically Miltonic rebellion and Blake religion of the body and senses retold for children. There is no anti-religiosity in this film that is not several centuries old. Hollywood proves yet again that the main stumbling block in it's quest for fantasy and creativity is a fundamental American stodginess, conservatism and puritan vulgarity of mind. See Pan's Labyrinth for a story about a child with adult themes. CS Lewis is alright for Hollywood because it's basically very slight stuff, as all thinly veiled allegory always is; allegory is not creative or satisfying; just a thin mirror for an agenda, political or religious. The Narnia books are hardly epic; thin pamphlets of about 110 pages. Santa Claus? Arabs as monsters? Talking mice twirling their whiskers and saying 'Prithee'? Silly stuff, really.
Oh and GOD is DUST, not the Authority
by Sepulchrave
Nov 28th, 2007
09:22:06 AM
The kids are out to SAVE God from a bunch of Satanists. And The Guardian had a full review of this yesterday.
The ads make it look like a Narnia ripoff
by Live.
Nov 28th, 2007
09:23:58 AM
and I didn't bother to see Narnia. Everybody is looking for the next Harry Potter franchise, but all the pale imitators just look stiff and cold.
Damn
by homerofthesea
Nov 28th, 2007
09:26:47 AM
I don't mind that they've taken out the anti-Church stuff, though I do wonder how they'll manage to do that with their adaptation of the third book without completely reworking it. Meanwhile, the trailer makes the movie look slick and heartless. I don't know who came up with the rule that in adventure movies the leads can never look dirty. Evidently these movies are all set in the same alternate universe where sweat glands don't exist. And it looks like they really messed up Lyra's character, either in the casting or in the script (hard to tell from just the trailer, but it does feel off). I'm bummed.
ironic_name, organized religion is the definition
by I Dunno
Nov 28th, 2007
09:28:09 AM
of herd mentality. There's nothing "cool" or "edgy" about not wanting to have anything to do with it, that's not the thought process. Being a condescending prick to anyone not religious isn't very Christ-like though.
I hear there's a Treatment for the 2nd film
by THE KNIGHT
Nov 28th, 2007
09:31:49 AM
But how on earth can the script be written if this writer's strike lasts? Aren't they trying to get going before Dakota Blue gets too old?

New Line isn't even sure if this is going to be a hit yet either.

Plan....er?....what?
by Lost Jarv
Nov 28th, 2007
09:36:03 AM
balanced reviews. On AICN? who'd a thought it. Although interestingly they all seem to like/ dislike different things.
Why
by Calimist
Nov 28th, 2007
09:39:01 AM
is it that religious material can come out in theaters without a problem but when something remotely "anti-religious" or pro atheism comes out the fucking churches want to boycott? That my friends is what is wrong with this world today.
About the Ending
by DrManhattansUnit
Nov 28th, 2007
09:39:09 AM
It's been made clear on several movie sites that the ending of the first book has been moved to the start of the 2nd movie. And rightly so, it's too dark to end the movie like that.
Harry Potter movies have heart
by Live.
Nov 28th, 2007
09:39:15 AM
Even the first Columbus movies, which everyone rags on, had a great deal of heart and warmth to them. Probably due mostly to Rowling's source material. It is the secret of the franchise, and why they succeed when their imitators fail. All of the wannabe followers stuff their movies with CGI fantasy creatures, magic, and well scrubbed kids, but still watch their movies fail. They forget to put any heart in the midst of their empty effects.
I hope this dies a horrid painful death
by Lost Jarv
Nov 28th, 2007
09:42:23 AM
and I despise organised religion. I just don't ever want to see that turgid, insipd 3rd book make the screen. A fucking horrendous book.

It bugs me that the Catholic church is urging a boycott. That sort of thing immediatly elevates the boycott-ee to the top of my wish list. Just like when the BBFC use to use the Video Nasties act to ban something. Or Clockwork Orangs when you couldn't get it in the UK.

Catholic league makes me feel sorry for Pullman:
by newc0253
Nov 28th, 2007
09:46:52 AM
I think the Northern Lights trilogy is made up of a brilliant first book, an interesting second book, and a third book so direly bad it made me regret picking up the series in the first book. It is quite literally the worst ending to a trilogy i've ever seen, and that includes Matrix Revolutions.

That said, being attacked by the Catholic League is enough to make anyone feel sorry for Pullman. I think he ruined the third book and by extension the trilogy with his inability to get past his own dogmatic grudge against organised religion. But the idea of his trilogy is a sound one and the trailers to the first movie make it seem every bit as good as the first book deserves.

And despite hating the third book, i'm still keen to see this in theatres because i think Weitz's adaptation will almost inevitably improve the trilogy overall (i.e. by taking out Pullman's dopey ideas in the third book).

it's a little surprising, though, that they left out the ending of the first book. i would have thought that was the strongest way to hook in audiences for the subsequent films. It certainly worked that way in the book.

oh i forgot
by Calimist
Nov 28th, 2007
09:53:08 AM
all hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Ad spam
by Live.
Nov 28th, 2007
09:56:24 AM
Everywhere I turn online, I run into ads for this movie. The studio certainly seems to be shelling out tons of money in advertising. Most annoyingly, they do the full page ads, where you surf to a site, get re-directed to their ad page, and have to click "skip" to get back to the site you wanted. It's a minor annoyance if you hit it at one site, but a major annoyance when you're hitting it smeared everywhere, or you're a repeat visitor to the site.
Atheists don't need Narnia
by wintocha67
Nov 28th, 2007
10:05:51 AM
Besides LOTR isn't prosthelizing, as far as I know.
Killing God, but believing in daemons
by zinc_chameleon
Nov 28th, 2007
10:08:53 AM
Is kinda funny. Philip Pullman writes a fantasy where souls are so real, you don't even need to be clairvoyant to see them, then he talks about killing God? Dear Philip: once you consider the reality of a soul, or of anything that cannot yet be measured by scientific instrumentation, then you are in the realm where God is not only possible but likely. p.s.:all the important humans in this trilogy possess psychic powers as well. To believe in psychic powers and not God is not Satanism, it's just incomplete philosophy.
Calimist
by Omar B
Nov 28th, 2007
10:10:00 AM
"Is it that religious material can come out in theaters without a problem but when something remotely "anti-religious" or pro atheism comes out the fucking churches want to boycott? That my friends is what is wrong with this world today." Because they have held onto the same fairy tale idea about a god for so long. Even to believers the fairy tale about a merciful (yet seemingly always angry and in constant need or self assurance through prayer) god wears thin. You accept fairy tales your whole life and then see something that questions it and it drives you up the wall because it points out the absurdity of your belief system. If a children's movie can rattle the foundations of a belife system so that you have to protest then it just points more the absurdity of it. As children we accepted Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny etc. without proof of their exostance, but we grew up. What is belife, faith, but accepting something you have no proof of. That the enemies of rational thought, acccepting something whatever it may be without a single thread of proof exept for what the other brainwashed sheep say, the blind leading the blind yet all of them proclaiming that the can see the truth.
Potter and LotR it ain't
by greyspecter
Nov 28th, 2007
10:10:29 AM
As a lover of literature and scifi/fantasy, I wasn't impressed with the trilogy, though I dropped it 3 chapters into the last book. The quintessence of the Potter books and the Lord of the Rings trilogy was, i think, a definite world and place where characters were established and developed, after which they were given greater scope to their adventures. There was also the fierce cameraderie between the various characters that was absent in HDM. But mostly, the pedantic preachiness of Pullman's hatred of God, the Church, et all, was what soured the tales. Say what you will about Narnia and the lack of nuance, but Lewis told engaging stories about fundamental issues in humanity, albeit from a different perspective (which is why we read books in the first place, particularly in these genres). He borrowed from Christian tradition, but his message, if any, was simply that the Bible has some compelling themes in it, and they are relevant to the history of mankind. Pullman sublimated the stories he told to his desire to expose organized religion and specificly Christian and Catholic faith to a degree that the stories suffered irrevocably. As a Christian myself, I've read many anti-religious material while attaining a M.A. in literature from a liberal arts university. I can disagree with the sentiment of the writing and still appreciate the writing as art, or at the least interestingly told stories. HDM wasn't compelling, interestingly written, or even art, unless you're more interested in religion-bashing than reading fun lit. He has some creative ideas, but the execution was flawed and that isn't the fault of the moviemakers.

As for the movie, I won't go see it, nor will I protest it. Vote with your pockebooks, my fellow believers. That's the only language Hollywood understands.

moving the end
by Lost Jarv
Nov 28th, 2007
10:10:55 AM
is never a good idea. It completely buggers up the pacing of the second film, and there is a bloody good chance it can fuck up the first as well- especially with an ending like the Northern Lights.

For example, I hated the fact they moved Shelob from TT into ROTK- I really felt it fucked ROTK up badly-

zinc_chameleon
by Omar B
Nov 28th, 2007
10:19:21 AM
"Is kinda funny. Philip Pullman writes a fantasy where souls are so real, you don't even need to be clairvoyant to see them, then he talks about killing God?"" The deamons are an allegory for how we change as we grow up. An adult's demon only has one form but a child is constantly changing because they grow and change. It speaks to a child's potential and not being locked in but unlimited. Which is why they are symbolically trying to remove the deamons, it's symbolism for removing choice so the child will have to accept and believe.
BOYCOTT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
by IAmMrMonkey!
Nov 28th, 2007
10:19:35 AM
Pray to Cthulu instead.
Was Chris Weitz
by Series7
Nov 28th, 2007
10:22:10 AM
The right guy to direct a movie like this? You think they would have given him a warm up movie to show that he could do something this big. Seemed like a big risk, plus he didn't come off as a Gonzo fan ala Jackson (plus Jackson had much better earlier work). Weitz's movies always seemed really lazy to me, like nothing special about them except the script. I mean American Pie is classic but not for it looking good. But Andrew Adamson had only done Shrek and he pulled off Narnia.
Was Chris Weitz
by Series7
Nov 28th, 2007
10:22:12 AM
The right guy to direct a movie like this? You think they would have given him a warm up movie to show that he could do something this big. Seemed like a big risk, plus he didn't come off as a Gonzo fan ala Jackson (plus Jackson had much better earlier work). Weitz's movies always seemed really lazy to me, like nothing special about them except the script. I mean American Pie is classic but not for it looking good. But Andrew Adamson had only done Shrek and he pulled off Narnia.
Boycott all organised religion!!!!!
by Lost Jarv
Nov 28th, 2007
10:22:15 AM
send ME your money instead. For a suitable donation I can GUARANTEE you a seat in the multiplex of heaven that will only show your favourite movies.

You may as well, it's got as much chance of existing as the Christian heaven.

I Dunno
by ironic_name
Nov 28th, 2007
10:25:49 AM
you instantly think I'm Christian?

or that i want to be christ?

Ghandi made fun of dumb people, too. maybe i'm hindu

or believe that "God" is another way of saying "the space-time continuum"

anyhoo nicole kidman and fake looking bears are my gripe with this movie. now lets make fun of tom cruise. everyone agrees hes crazy!

didn't read the books, followed it okay
by filmcoyote
Nov 28th, 2007
10:28:46 AM
I sent in a review to Quint from the premiere too, hope it gets posted as I haven't read the books so have a non-fan point of view. The film really worked for me and i found the pace its strength. The negatives in the reviews above seem largely to come from comparison to the book and since surely most people seeing the film won't have read the book that seems a bit specific to me. It's much better as a film than any of the Potter films and Narnia.
Meh. I'll spend my money on I Am Legend instead.
by grievenom
Nov 28th, 2007
10:29:39 AM
"HDM wasn't compelling, interestingly written, or even art"
by CatVutt
Nov 28th, 2007
10:29:47 AM
And that pretty much sums up my feelings on the books as well, and clearly illustrates why a Catholic Church boycott is so damned silly. The books simply never present any ideas that even rise to the level of intriguing enough be taken seriously in the first place.
Change the title to "Revenge of Doctor Doolittle."
by Uncapie
Nov 28th, 2007
10:33:08 AM
I'd sneak in the theater to see that. Otherwise, I'm burnt out on CGI'd talking animals.
Calimist and Omar B
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
10:38:46 AM
The reason the religious protest (an action with which I disagree, since a protest implies relevance and importance, two things that most movies lack) anti-religious movies is because PRO-God movies are (or should be) representative of the best aspects of religion, ie, love. ANTI-God movies are usually anti-believer movies, and therefore represent the aspect of intolerance and/or hatred. Funny, the non-religious get up-in-arms about the intolerance of the religious, while being just as intolerant and mocking of the religious.

As far as the aspects of God, while I'm not qualified to lecture on theology, my understanding of prayer and God is not that God needs self assurance. Nor does he need information - what could a person inform God through prayer that he doesn't already theoretically know? Nor could it be to manipulate God to action - if God were that weak willed and anemic, who would ever care to follow?

Therefore, if the purpose of prayer is not to conform God to our will, it must be to conform us to his will - that is to say, motivate us to be agents of change or mercy in some situations, or to simply accept there are things that are completely out of our control.
Boycott Org Religion = Watch this Flick?
by aceattorney
Nov 28th, 2007
10:38:51 AM
LMFAO
Fuck the Catholic league
by Series7
Nov 28th, 2007
10:39:30 AM
Anyone who listens to them deserves not to watch any movies period. If your faith is SOOO weak that a movie (a fictional event) will shake it to the foundation, then you probably did not have enough faith to begin with. I am not religious, and I have nothing against it, I just hate this mindless banning of Art because it may go against what you think is correct. Plus these people have amazing sway with the public? And we wonder why George W. is still in office? These people sat around and supported Mel Gibson's movie and then he turns around and is banded an anti jew, I don't care about that because I've been drunk and said dumb shit (some of it documented on this site!). It just makes me mad that we still live in a time when any religion period has any sort of power. Any religion is wrong when it starts to say we are right you are wrong. Religion is a personal thing. If you want to protest this movie, make another movie thats pro Catholic in its beliefs. Dont just sit there and tell mindless followers that this movie is a sin and should be banned. This movie looks really expensive, and big bugeted movies have not been getting all their returns (Beowulf???) and if some douche bag with a book gets millions of people to not see this movie, who would most likely see something like this and it tanks and loses a lot of money, then fuck them. This movie may suck I don't know, what I do know is if companies keep losing money on their tent pole movies then less of them are going to be made, and then we will be stuck in a world were only Judd Aptow movies are made because they are cheap and everyone loves them. EHhhh the people on this site would probably like that. Oh and I am baptised Catholic as well, but I guess that may mean something to some people? Not me.
It's funny...
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
10:41:55 AM
If a Buddhist talks about the wisdom of knowing when to act and when to be still, everyone marvels at how smart that is. But to attach that same wisdom to a God-type theology, many people will just sit back and say it's part of the herd mentality.

You make the call.
funny
by hum noises for the Beast
Nov 28th, 2007
10:50:13 AM
how religion always seems to bring the best out in us
obviously the FSM is anti-god
by occula
Nov 28th, 2007
10:52:56 AM
i agree, fuck the catholic league. needing to drum up support somehow so you've decided to rag on a movie? how about thinking about what jeebus would do and instead going to darfur or afghanistan and helping refugees? too messy for you? gee, what a surprise. it's so much easier for these organizations to make a big stink than to bother to do a big good.
Fuck all religions
by Series7
Nov 28th, 2007
10:53:56 AM
Is the point I was trying to make. You can't sit around and ban movies like The Golden Compass and danish cartoons. And say nothing when movies like Daddy Day Care get made or you find it ok to kill a women because she smoked a cigerette. Just shut up and keep to your selves, until God/the elephant with 8 arms/Ali/Jewish God/Harry Knowles (thats a budda reference)/John Smith/Tom Cruise (becaus I don't believe in John Travolta)/Satan comes up to me and says believe this or die then there really are no real "rules" for how society should run. PLUUUUSSSS where in the bible does it say thou shal not watch Polar Bears whomp on each other, that scene was enough to get my butt in a seat. Shit I'll pay to have my whole local church come with me, I'd have to find it first, do they still have churchs in Wal Mart?
Hum noises...
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
10:56:56 AM
Was that irony or sarcasm? LOL

You know, I think religion (not to be confused with faith, since you can have one without the other) is like alcohol: it brings out more of what was already there, and gives it focus.
Narnia blew!
by StovetopStuffin'
Nov 28th, 2007
10:58:15 AM
This looks infinitely better. I'm going to read the books before I see this though. Kill God....yes please!
You Guys Read It Wrong, The Catholic Church Was Actually Asking
by The Ender Smites Foes
Nov 28th, 2007
10:58:31 AM
Boys to come to church with cotts in hand. Spend the night...enjoy some hot chocolate...MAYBE get violated? Who knows, It's all part of the fun at BOYS COTT NIGHT!! Coming to a church near you!
"specially"? Try especially genius.
by jimmy_009
Nov 28th, 2007
11:02:13 AM
Christ almighty.
Holy Shit I can post again
by NomoredirtyjokespleaseweareYanks
Nov 28th, 2007
11:04:22 AM
In the Bible, words having to do with killing significantly outnumber words having to do with love.God allows Adam and Eve to be deceived by the Serpent (the craftiest of all of God's wild creatures). They eat of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil," thereby incurring death for themselves and all of mankind for ever after. God prevents them from regaining eternal life, by placing a guard around the "Tree of Eternal Life." (Note: God could have done the same for the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" in the first place and would thereby have prevented the Fall of man, the necessity for Salvation, the Crucifixion of Jesus, etc.)
Sounds like a dud to me
by jimmy_009
Nov 28th, 2007
11:04:31 AM
It looks like a knock off of too many things. I'll pass.
Amodoe
by hum noises for the Beast
Nov 28th, 2007
11:07:24 AM
Take your pick, ill proballiy get shouted at for quoting Kevin Smith (seeing how popular he is with catholic’s) “its better to have an idea then a belief because its easier to change “ or something like that
but wait there's more
by NomoredirtyjokespleaseweareYanks
Nov 28th, 2007
11:07:32 AM
God's arbitrary preference of Abel's offering to that of Cain's provokes Cain to commit the first biblically recorded murder and kill his brother Abel.God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to do something about it. He kills every living thing on the face of the earth other than Noah's family and thereby makes himself the greatest mass murderer in history. With the Lord's approval, a slave may be beaten to death with no punishment for the perpetrator as long as the slave doesn't die too quickly.
but wait there's still more....
by NomoredirtyjokespleaseweareYanks
Nov 28th, 2007
11:08:29 AM
In the Bible God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered. People in the Bible tried to force beliefs of imaginary paranormal beings onto others, and many times when they failed they killed in the name of God. A good start is the first two commandments, no others gods or idols - they result in Moses killing 3,000 friends and family in Exodus 32:27-28. David and Gideon slaughtered thousands. Jesus said in John 15:6: "Anyone who parts from me is thrown away like a useless branch and withers. Such branches are gathered into a pile to be burned." Revelation 9:15 prophesize angels will kill a third of mankind. Is mass murder a principle of right conduct?
Three people who can't agree on what's wrong.
by Christopher3
Nov 28th, 2007
11:09:11 AM
Worrisome.
phew, glad to get that off my chest.
by NomoredirtyjokespleaseweareYanks
Nov 28th, 2007
11:09:19 AM
Religion SUX. Waka Waka Waka.
All the Christian groups are getting ready to boycott it
by chrth
Nov 28th, 2007
11:14:44 AM
Not just the Catholics. The fact that they cut out the religious stuff somewhat makes it worse in their eyes, because they think it'll cause the kids to read the books (which, of course, doesn't have it cut). And since these are the same groups that made so much money for Passion, I imagine they'll be successful.
crth...
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
11:19:10 AM
You're assuming that religious groups will be able to work together. Good luck with that.

Most religions spend more time erecting defenses against each other rather than against the devil that they don't take seriously. Sad, but true.
The Guardian's (never a paper to shy away from bashing OR)
by Jugs
Nov 28th, 2007
11:20:08 AM
review..and SPOILERS!!! If Darth Vader wore a blond wig, a slinky dress and a dab of Chanel behind each ear, he could hardly be as evil as Nicole Kidman, playing the gorgeous villainess Mrs Coulter in this spectacular new movie version of Northern Lights, the opening episode of Philip Pullman's fantasy series His Dark Materials. Pullman reportedly suggested Kidman for the role. Even if he hadn't, Kidman herself would have been kicking her agent's door in to get it. This is the very best sort of part for her: statuesque, elegant, seductive, with a hint of cold steel. In many ways, it's her juiciest character since the sociopathic meteorologist in To Die For. Mrs Coulter's unspeakable plan is to get the feisty teenage heroine Lyra into her clutches and, among other dastardly projects, grab Lyra's precious Alethiometer, or Golden Compass: a magic, fob-watch-type contraption which tells not time, but truth itself. Lyra is played by Dakota Blue Richards, who with a name like that should really be a 27-year-old country singer from the US. Actually, she's a 13-year-old acting newcomer from Brighton, and she does well, although her rough "urchin" accent comes and goes. The Golden Compass is set in a retro-futurist version of the real world: a faintly Gilliamesque place of bizarrely crowded neo-classic cities and Heath Robinson flying machines. Here, human beings all have their own "daemons", like witches' familiars, but benign, shape-shifting essences that incarnate that person's human spirit. It is a world ruled over by the Magisterium, a powerful mind control cult. Boldly contesting the Magisterium is Lyra's adored uncle and guardian, the gallant Lord Asriel, who, like Indiana Jones, has a glamorous career portfolio. Asriel is a man of action, mystical seer, anthropologist and Oxford don. From his travels in the frozen north, he has found evidence of other worlds, other existences. He is thus suspected of heresy by the Magisterium, keen to impose a kind of Vatican-Caliphate-Soviet rule over all minds. Its agent, Mrs Coulter, is set to work on Lyra and also pursues a horrible plan against children generally. Asriel is played by Daniel Craig, sporting a distinctive, non-Bond beard for the occasion, and he is a fellow of Jordan College, Oxford, which allows Lyra to live there in a little attic room and also grants her the very remarkable privilege of dining at High Table. In her battle with the forces of regimented thinking and evil generally, Lyra finds herself making common cause with a wildly diverse band of brothers, including a cowboy-adventurer played by Sam Elliott, nomadic grandees played by Jim Carter and Tom Courtenay, and a highly aggressive polar bear called Iorek Byrnison, voiced by Ian McKellen, who has a very violent moment of bear-on-bear action with a hated usurper of his royal status. It's so violent, incidentally, that this scene might almost rule out some of the younger audience. As with many adaptations of this sort, a lot of the novel's supporting background material which might acclimatise us to the story's strange and distinctive world has been stripped out. You're just plunged straight into the action and have to get used to this bewildering, exotic new universe as best you can. The effect is interesting and alienating, though the tiniest bit more absurd than I think Philip Pullman would have intended. It's not hard to see which buttons this movie is hitting: Narnia, Hobbits, Hogwarts, Star Wars. Christopher Lee has a small part - and I very much hope he is given more to do in succeeding episodes. The crowded imaginary universe of The Golden Compass takes some getting used to, and in some ways, as a non-follower of the Pullman books, I have still to be entirely sold on it. But it certainly looks wonderful, with epic dash and a terrific central performance from Nicole Kidman, who may come to dominate our children's nightmares the way Robert Helpmann's Child Catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang once did ours. It has no other challengers as this year's big Christmas movie.
chrth, not crth...
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
11:20:11 AM
doh.
Can't wait to see this!
by Frank Black
Nov 28th, 2007
11:20:19 AM
I love talking Polar Bears who fight and I hate organized religion so it is a perfect match for me.
Wait, there's still more.....
by NomoredirtyjokespleaseweareYanks
Nov 28th, 2007
11:20:53 AM
And to any christan who wants me to keep an open mind, I will and am ever hopeful for the return of Zuess.
"It will cause the kids to read BOOKS"
by I Dunno
Nov 28th, 2007
11:21:28 AM
I think that says it all right there. Harry Potter got a generation of kids to put down the Wii-mote and pick up books. Christians call it Satanic. I see a pattern emerging here.
Dammit
by NomoredirtyjokespleaseweareYanks
Nov 28th, 2007
11:22:24 AM
Satan caused that spelling error(You prove he didn't).
The polar bears don't just fight, sometimes they are very happy.
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
11:23:26 AM


They're bi-polar bears.

Daemons, Souls, and Killing God...
by micturatingbenjamin
Nov 28th, 2007
11:25:50 AM
The idea of a soul irrespective of a 'God' being controlling it isn't as paradoxical as you might think, because many, many, many, pantheonic religions believe in spirits rather than one single 'Invisible Man Who Lives In the Clouds and Gives a Shit What You Eat, Wear, and Say'.

It's a uniquely American point of view that religious folk have to believe certain things to fall into the 'believable'. Which is why most Americans are fine with Muslims and Hindus, but mock Aboriginal spirit-worship or Paganism.

In my own opinion, it's all hokum and humbug, but you do whatever gets you through the night.

So far, I'm reading the first book, and it's like a really cynical Dickensian take on kids' fare. Problems I have with the book is Pullman writes as if people are at their neutral state wicked or at least selfish and snarky, and no good exists in the world in a natural state. Children are mean and cruel, savage little beasts of cunning. The 'good' ones are stupid or would seem to be in the universe he created. You can see the guy doesn't like organized religion simply from the way he writes the book.

From what I gather of the ending, he debunks the 'God' everyone worships as a pale, weak, and nonsensical non-factor. That worship of 'God' is pathetic, and leads only to evil.

It's a very cynical view, guys, but I'll say this: I work in a business where I get to see kids, possibly your kids, goofing off with a service meant for the deaf, and how they spend their free time would sicken most people. It's not cute, or as pithy as 'Hannah Montana'. Most kids these days are grim, racist little fuckers with no concept of consequence because of their child-fetishist and ignorant fuck parents. Whoops, tangent.

That said, this flick seems like a watered down version of the book, and believe me, it's palatable this way, because while JK Rowling's disdain for the machine of Christianity is cleverly disguised, Pullman's cynicism is on every page.

This is going to do well, because of the adults that go see it who hate religion, and think that Pullman's a breath of fresh air in a world of 'Jiminy Cricket-worship' disguised as entertainment.

Lastly, the movie probably begins that way because Pullman has a paragraph before the first book that describes the universe, with the exception of daemons, which he unfolds in the story. Oh, and he tries to push all those reactionary 'bible-thumper' buttons by naming people and things after the names of 'real' demons. And also manages to use the word demon to describe something cute and fluffy and wonderful. Great trick, if it works, expect Fred Phelps to banish the lot of the moviegoers to HELL for seeing this flick. *shrug*

"Daniel Craig gets an "and" and has more lines."
by mbeemer
Nov 28th, 2007
11:26:51 AM
I understand the "and" credit is sometimes sought after because it emphasizes the actor who receives it over the others.
"[God] kills every living thing..."
by mbeemer
Nov 28th, 2007
11:27:09 AM
"...on the face of the earth other than Noah's family and thereby makes himself the greatest mass murderer in history.

Hey, the Devil put it best himself in an episode of "Reaper":

"My toy, I get to break it if I want."

mbeemer
by NomoredirtyjokespleaseweareYanks
Nov 28th, 2007
11:35:51 AM
yeah, I know.... but at least I shut those religious nuts up.
NoMoredirtyblablabla
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
11:37:57 AM
What religious nuts? I'm looking through the talkback, and the only person I see ranting about religion is you.
They don't have to work together
by chrth
Nov 28th, 2007
11:39:30 AM
Trust me, they've already started the anti-GC campaign.

As for Harry Potter, there's a mix of opinion among the Christians about it, especially after the 7th book. I *think* most of the groups don't have a problem with it.

Besides, there are always the Narnia books. The idea that Christians are opposed to children reading is wrong, and espousing such an opinion makes you as narrow-minded as the religious zealots.

rock-me Amodeo
by NomoredirtyjokespleaseweareYanks
Nov 28th, 2007
11:40:18 AM
look behind you, its Jesus.
whatever, nomore...
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
11:43:57 AM
Christians are Opposed to...
by micturatingbenjamin
Nov 28th, 2007
11:45:25 AM
Free thought. Free-roaming kid thought, imagination that doesn't have at its core a belief in the spaghetti monster above all others. Bleah. Christians would be happier if the people would just stop wondering if all this worship is somehow harmful, and get down on their knees and donate already.

Again, bleah, I say.

micturatingbenjamin: see my last comment
by chrth
Nov 28th, 2007
11:47:59 AM
Honestly, some of you anti-religious nuts are worse than the religious nuts. When did open-mindedness become a sin for the athiests?
Re: they don't kill god in the last book
by Curious_Jorge
Nov 28th, 2007
11:50:05 AM
According to the Snopes article about the author, Phillip Pullman, it says "he left little doubt about his books' intended meanings when he said in a 2003 interview that "My books are about killing God" and in a 2001 interview that he was "trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief." http://www.snopes.com/politics /religion/compass.asp
the problem with His Dark Materials
by systemsbroom
Nov 28th, 2007
11:55:06 AM
is that Pullman built a really quite beautiful and imaginative set of worlds, and interesting characters, and then ruined it all by descending into a sophomoric and needless screed against religion. It's akin to a contemporary Michelanglo sculpting a contemporary David, and then slapping a big garish plaque on it that says "Bush is teh Evil." Why ruin something that would otherwise be great with a ridiculously trite, oversimplified, and ham-fisted message?
My deal is, I'm not pre-religion
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
11:55:09 AM
I'm pro-love. That said, I'm not above called someone out on their stupidity or zealous narrow-mindedness. That goes for deists, atheists and everyone in-between.

As far as christians being opposed to free thought, I have to disagree, knowing one christian pretty well. They are opposed to thinking that all thoughts are equally valid, as is everyone else. (free thought - lets climb down the mountain vs. lets lower ourselves using a strand of fishing wire. Two thought that are not of equal value.)

The difference is in the value system. Just like every other sentient being. I let my little kids dance on the coffee table. Others would not. Different values. Christians would prefer not to go to a perceived God-mocking movie. Others don't care. Different values, and its all really okay.
Or even PRO-religion...
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
11:55:50 AM
darned lack of editing feature...
The real problem with His Dark Materials
by chrth
Nov 28th, 2007
11:58:00 AM
is that the second book was lame. Never should've included "Earth Prime" in the mix. There were a million ways to go after the first book, and of course he had to go Terrocentrist. Ugh.
Last two reviews split on Dakota Blue Richards
by Freakemovie
Nov 28th, 2007
11:58:32 AM
Saw the movie last night, and although some of her lines were beyond awkward - there's a lot of "talking in paragraphs" in this movie - the actress was good. Liked the movie overall but it felt pretty minor.
chrth
by systemsbroom
Nov 28th, 2007
12:03:20 PM
Book 2 pales before the lameness of Book 3. I really got the impression with Book 3 that Pullman was running short on time, and never really had a great plan to pull together all the setup in Books 1 & 2. I hear you on the Earth Prime complaint, though. I did like the hints that Will was perhaps our world's version of Lyra, but all the stuff with the dark matter physicist was a bit too much. I think that the books might have been better if the plot moved from Lyra's world to the many other worlds, or focussed more on the no-world Lyra's father was building.
Agree with rock-me Amodeo
by Freakemovie
Nov 28th, 2007
12:04:50 PM
I'm Christian, and while I liked the film and think Pullman can write about whatever he wants, I understand some people's apprehension in exposing their kids to a series in which God is quite literally killed off. However, I do find it quite funny that some of the pushier religious groups are boycotting the movie because it "is designed to be very attractive in the hope unsuspecting parents will take their children to see the the movie and that the children will want the books for Christmas." (taken from an anti-GC Facebook group) Please. There's no conspiracy here. They're making the movie for the same reason as always: to MAKE MONEY. Not to trick your kids into buying the books.
Sorry rock-me Amodeo
by NomoredirtyjokespleaseweareYanks
Nov 28th, 2007
12:06:01 PM
That was quite a rant though huh? I really don't mean to offend anyone, I see the goodness inherant in all religions. Its just that as I was accosted in the mall today by a crazed preaching zealot who told me flatly that my 3 year old girl was going to hell unless baptised(all whilst she stood there) . It took every non- christian bone in my body to not drag him up and down the mall by his ass hairs. The guy pissed me off so much and this is my first chance to rant.
chrth...Whathehoothehay?
by micturatingbenjamin
Nov 28th, 2007
12:07:02 PM
Huh? You're misunderstanding me, or you're willfully ignorant. I'm saying that if you bring the Golden Compass into a church and ask someone, anyone, to read it, they'll shudder and probably spurn and shun you from the community, regardless of the literary merit of the book. If this were still the Middle Ages, they'd fork the evil eye at you, and that wonderful hickory smell in your nostrils would be your ass burning at the stake. They (Christians) won't see for themselves what it's about, but will wait for their leaders to tell them what to think.

Open-mindedness is not the same as willfull ignorance or accepting willful ignorance as an alternative to plain old mindedness, much less open-mindedness.

Open-Minded ness is NOT the same as gullibility. You keep your mind open to every possibility, so that when facts appear that shake your current understanding, such as : THERE IS NO CREDIBLE PROOF OF SANTA CLAUS, you can accept them and incorporate the new data into your world view. Not, just blindly accepting whatever garbage theory and junk science gets spewed by the dirt-worshipping mental savages out there who want one thing: thought control, and behavior modification through fear and subjugation.

Don't get me wrong, Christianity has some adherents who truly believe in the redeeming power of faith in Christ and his teachings, but sadly, none of those poor fuckers get a say in Church doctrine. Poor, literally, as they believe that, like their Lord, posessions are not important, nor happiness, but telling the truth of the existence of God, and treating one another as you yourself would be treated. They don't believe in judging me for my lack of faith, because they understand that only God metes out justice and balances the scales as in 'Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord'. The true Christians are shouted down when they suggest that perhaps the church should start giving all they have to those less fortunate, possibly changing the world to benefit all, not just go to the clothes comparison ceremony each week, pretending not to masturbate or fuck or say 'fuck' when they cut off a finger accidentally....or buy their kids violent toys, or beat their wives or lust after that hot ass teenager in the choir. Repressing their selves for he sake of appearance, and mocking all that the Christ apparently held dear. True seekers of redemption are exactly as elusive as the frigging non-entity of God itself. The real Christians exist at the margins, and are spurned by the religious machinery created by the money grubbing fucks who use this tall tale to scalp and fleece the gullible at will.

I'm open-minded, but fortunately, the gift of reason and discernment hasn't left me just because I grant the infinite possibilities of reality to persuade me to another way of thinking.

fantasy films are great for lazy writers...
by leobloom
Nov 28th, 2007
12:07:26 PM
you just drop a lot of acid, write down what you see, and voila! you've got a fantasy "epic" worthy of a half-dozen movies. Film that shit in 3D and you've got a damn goldmine.
micturatingbenjamin: My main issue is
by chrth
Nov 28th, 2007
12:12:09 PM
You're painting billions of people with the same brush. There's a close-mindedness there that exceeds all but the worst travesties that organized religion has visited upon this planet. Your inability to see that you're doing that is quite sad, frankly.
Leo...
by micturatingbenjamin
Nov 28th, 2007
12:13:48 PM
It's really not that easy...Dammit, I wish it was. I REALLY wish it was, because tripping is fun. But focusing on writing is tough while you're tripping balls on some kickass LSD. It's more fun to play video games while tripping. I'm writing a fantasy novel, and most of it's not simply closing my eyes and making shit up because of drug interactions. It's a little bit harder than that. But not much. ;)
micturatingbenjamin - I can't deny your eloquence.
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
12:20:07 PM
Nor would I. Well, said, if a bit cynical. But as I read your comments, I have to agree with Chrth's response.

It made me think that you and my slightly-racist dad could compare your notes about Christians and his notes about asian people: they all pretty much looked the same to him, too.
chrth
by micturatingbenjamin
Nov 28th, 2007
12:23:14 PM
*sigh* Yes. I know, and I've not claimed otherwise, man (or woman). I believe you billions (I suspect you're referring to Christians, here...) are misguided. It's not closed-minded. If the spaghetti monster comes to me in a vision, or I'm visited by an angel, or high-fived by Christ after he helps me with the big game, then of COURSE I'm going to believe. But because the fact is that there is no such thing as God. Not real, never was. That's a fact.

And, your attempt to make me seem worse than the ignorant fucks who committed evils like the Salem Witch Trials and the Inquisition or the Catholic Church ignoring pedophelia exposes your own debate style. Painting me with that brush is just the nice ad hominem attacks one expects from zealots.

So, invoke your prayers, or fork the evil eye at me, and NOTHING will come of it! It's a fact. Like gravity is a fact. Or breathing is a fact.

Save up all your good deeds for that invisible condo in the sky, meanwhile, I'll do just whatever the fuck I like without a guy in a suit telling me what I should be doing by deciphering the poetry and texts of nomadic desert people from long ago.

Disbelief because of lack of proof is called reason. Disbelief because of a willful ignorance is what Christians do, that's being closed-minded.


by Omar B
Nov 28th, 2007
12:25:46 PM
I love that post.
Anna Valerious no, it's not the decades of protecting child rapi
by s0nicdeathmonkey
Nov 28th, 2007
12:26:25 PM
it's the 2000 years before that where the church did all sorts of other evil shit. Like the sale of indulgences? The vilifying of female sexuality. Complacency in the holocaust? The Pogroms? The Crusades? Forced confession/conversion? The issue is 2000 years of hipocracy and lies over a silly creation myth.
Nomore...
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
12:26:58 PM
No big deal, and that was quite nice of you. And I get it: the other day I saw the bumper sticker that said, "Lord save me from your followers." And I was sad because for every 49 sincere, humble followers, there is 1 asshole who makes all 50 look like losers. But as I like to say, going to church doesn't make a person a christian any more than going to Pizza Hut makes you a pizza. I wish there was a setting on everyones tricorder that could detect douchebags, but alas, there is not. Give your girl (I have two little girls) a hug for me. Gotta go.

by Omar B
Nov 28th, 2007
12:35:13 PM
Wait, tell me how writing on this site is direct result of the catholic church?
Cynicism...
by micturatingbenjamin
Nov 28th, 2007
12:36:27 PM
Is often misinterpreted. I'm cynical of the current Church, because current Christians don't do the things written in the Bible that Christians are supposed to do. As evinced by my belonging to said church since I was about three years old. I wonder how many of the consumerist mall-zombies out there last Friday would call themselves 'Christian', since they were buying for 'Christmas', no? Wasn't it the Christ who said 'Buyeth thou the most cheapest of goods to keep my birthday holy'. No, it was those in charge of the commercialistic charge to purchase equating Christ's birth with getting the latest toy. I might wield a massive brush, but they provide the paint.

Racism is abhorrent because hating someone for a genetic trait is useless scapegoating. Genetics is a fact, too, and guess what? Racism is different from Athiestic Cynicism (I'm more of an agnostic, where, like I said, you give me more than anecdotal evidence, and I'm willing to be persuaded.) How are they different? Your racist dad hates someone for something they cannot change and had no control over. I disdain Christians for their behavior, and continued behavior when alternatives to narrow-minded haranguing of women, homosexuals, and the poor alike.

If there is a Christ returning to the Earth, remember that in the Revelation to John, he saw that many will call out to him saying 'Lord, Lord!' and guess what? Christ looks at them and shakes his head saying 'You never knew me'. Why wait for Revelation to come? Why not call a spade a spade, and say that these people aren't Christians, but power-hungry and willfully ignorant folks. Yeah, I'm cynical, but that comes from being irradiated by the belief structure from an early age and being a believer until realizing that things were being omitted from the church's teachings when it was inconvenient to them to admit. A Bible scholar I went to said the most brilliant thing about the Bible I've ever heard...'Many so-called Christians come to the Bible with questions that the authors did not intend or presume to have answers for.' He was a Christian, and in the sense of a man I would look at and say; 'That guy knows his stuff, and still lives the life Christ would want him to, I suppose.'...But there are still billions hooking their wagons to the star of faith that is in Man not Christ.

I prefer Paul's statement of conjecture to the Romans when someone asks me about the Bible: Romans 12:14 'So then each of us must give an account of himself to God.'

I don't cotton to being called a racist or my dislike of modern zealots being compared to racism. I dislike something that could be changed, but don't seem likely to, and that is DEFINITELY cynicism, but no, not racism.

as for Giselle
by s0nicdeathmonkey
Nov 28th, 2007
12:37:00 PM
"Gisele has said "To prohibit condoms is ridiculous, just think of all the diseases transmitted without them", asking "How is it possible to not want people to use condoms and also not have abortions? It's impossible, I'm sorry""--that's a totally reasonable assertion. Same way the other religions that are not anti-sex/anti-women have less problems with, you know, RAPING CHILDREN. Because, this is one consequence of your beliefs. You believe sex is bad and shameful, and then children get raped. I believe in secular humanism, which as to my knowledge has never caused even one genocide, or one rape. Your beliefs stand at a few hundred million murdered and countless children raped. But yeah, you've got the higher moral ground because you pretend penis and vagina contact is naughty and wrong.
Anna Valerious furthermore,
by s0nicdeathmonkey
Nov 28th, 2007
12:41:38 PM
You do know at least one priest who has raped a child. The levels of priests who rape children was over 10 percent according to an LA times article I read. Therefore, it's very likely that you have prayed under, and moreover, respect(ed) a child rapist at some point. The part that's funny to me is, the molestation stuff isn't even the worst of it, but that's what you're so defensive about.
s0nic!!! Thanks to interventive consequence!
by micturatingbenjamin
Nov 28th, 2007
12:41:53 PM
Wow, well put. My penis is naughty, and crooked, and therefore wrong. It's also too small, I'd prefer one of a gigantic proportion, but alas, there is no God to pray to to change that.
heh heh - okay, ONE more comment!
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
12:42:06 PM
"Disbelief because of lack of proof is called reason."

Technically, is there is a LACK of proof, that is a textbook example of the need to KEEP an open mind.

Disbelief because of proof positive is called reason.

Sorry, dude (or dudette.) Respectfully, I couldn't resist. That's Logic 101.
IF there is a lack of proof...
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
12:43:18 PM
..darned lack of editing feature...
micturatingbenjamin
by Freakemovie
Nov 28th, 2007
12:43:43 PM
Your whole assumption that most Christians are like the girls of the Salem Witch Trials or the pedophile priests is where you're wrong. Honest, kind, level-headed Christians don't live in the margins at all - they're the silent but vast majority of Christians. Then you get the crazies and the Pat Robertsons and some evangelical groups, and they grab all the headlines and make anyone who's not a Christian think we're all complete fucking nuts. I've talked to so many agnostics and atheists with this misconception that it's beyond depressing. But I suppose the radical minority ruining it for the moderate majority is nothing new in history.
Enough already.
by CatVutt
Nov 28th, 2007
12:45:06 PM
Seriously. There's nothing remotely thought-provoking in any of these silly books that even warrant a legitimate discussion about religion. It's laughable. Talk about buying into the completely fabricated controversy.
Okay, just read the cynacism post, so one more...
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
12:46:19 PM
just give me a sec...
"Hardcore fans might disagree"
by Abominable Snowcone
Nov 28th, 2007
12:48:23 PM
I guess I'm way out of the loop, because someone had to explain what this movie was to me. I'd never heard of the books (the first of which apparently came out in 1995--not that long ago). I'm not saying I'm in shock that a book series can have fans without my knowing about it, but I doubt some "fans" are as devoted as they suggest, when I--a devout geek--have never heard of any of this until maybe a month ago. I saw the commercial and to me it was like, "Meh! Hey, I've got some high concept for you! Imagine this--sentient polar bears...in BATTLE ARMOR!!"
MicBen
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
12:59:01 PM
Okay, first, wasn't trying to call you a racist. And my dad didn't hate asians, not at all (hence me using the word SLIGHTLY). He simply saw no real difference between the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, etc. But of course, there is a world of difference, especially if you grew up in one of those cultures.

All I was trying to show you is how your broad brush strokes regarding christians could evoke comparisons to racism. The catholics, Luthorans, Presbyterians, non-denoms, etc, see as much distinction between themselves, and each has varying viewpoints on acts of service, missionary work, etc. Some christians regularly work and finance Habitat for Humanity, for example. Others prefer sending food to Africa. And still others will go to a mall and try and gang-save poor passerbys.

I think you did a good job of saying that some few christians are not worthy of contempt and are not absolute morons (and I guess that was you giving a compliment) but the rest of your posts seem to lump them all together.

But all christian denominations are not the same.
All christians in a particular denomination are not the same.
And all people who belong to a particular church or denomination are not necessarily Christian.

And, reading between the lines, all christians are not the christians that wounded your spirit when you were younger.
rock-me Amodeo
by Omar B
Nov 28th, 2007
01:00:06 PM
"Technically, is there is a LACK of proof, that is a textbook example of the need to KEEP an open mind." No, I think lack of proof only goes so far. Lack of proof for me means just that. If it can't be proven, it must be thrown out as any other thing that has no ground in reality. Does one keep an open mind about the Easter Bunny's existence because as you say there is no proof. It sounds like asking someone to believe something on faith not fact, I live on fact not faith divorced from all proof.
Amadeo
by micturatingbenjamin
Nov 28th, 2007
01:01:07 PM
You're absolutely right. I do keep an open mind because of that lack of proof. I was mistaken, there. Just writing off the cuff without a proofreader. :)

But, to me my disbelief comes from proof positive that there is no God in the terms that people are pushing in the pews of modern Christianity.

And to Freake...Hey, look, you know what? Christ would spit the milktoast, lukewarm majority 'Christians' out of his mouth, you know that? You allowed HIS church to be taken over by the Phelpses and Robertsons and Helmses and pedophile priests. The Pharisees and Money Changers are among you and while you claim to lament it, NOTHING is BEING DONE. There's even a warmongering douche in the White House claiming his Christian faith, and lots and lots of Americans saying 'Yeah! That guy is a CHRISTIAN'!! Really? Shock and Awe? Bomb the shit out of them? Christian doctrine? Or total, immeasurable BULLSHIT?

If the bad rap Christianity is getting causes you to 'shrug' and go on your way to put up your Christmas Tree and find your Easter Eggs, then you must not give much of a damn about your 'sacred' belief in God, no? If that's what you allow to represent your Church then you are just as culpable by your inaction as those committing the crimes. Jesus himself in the Bible casts the same aspersions on the so called faithful who allowed the Church to become a den of thieves waaay back then according to the written Word.

Take back your Church, is what I'm saying, if you truly believe the codswallop in the Bibble that people attempt to pass off as genuine fact.

I'd prefer not to call myself an athiest, because soon, there will be proof of a power that governs all, a unification theory that shows all are joined by governing and measurable forces, and we're all the same stuff deep down, and all can believe in the 'big electron'. The possibility of God as a 'big invisible all powerful man who gives a shit' doesn't come to mind as remotely likely. A loving creator or wise counselor, or king of all men, seems like the invention of a imagination-lacking person, not a divine entity.

I respect a person and their beliefs and won't bust their balls directly as long as they keep me out of their nonsense. I worry about a group of people with those beliefs shouting and nodding along with a leader. But I fucking stay awake at night imagining the evils a society based on this crap can pull with people just shaking their heads sadly saying 'But REAL Christians aren't like THAT.' Tell it to the dead, as if they'd care.

Amadeo, you seem like a generous soul, and will have well-adjusted and normal kids, and it's good to hear that kind of rationality about the worldview out there. I don't hate Christians. I disdain the modern Church in all its permutations.

On-Topic once more...
by micturatingbenjamin
Nov 28th, 2007
01:05:16 PM
This flick is going to do well if the girl playing the plucky Lyra is any good at being the rough and tumble 'Pippi Longstocking-y' character from the books. If not...I dunno. I'll probably see this one, just to see it.
Always the script
by Messyjoe
Nov 28th, 2007
01:11:19 PM
I have read all the books and always though it could be a stunning trilogy. It is unfortunate that Hollywood can do the technical, art, CG etc. well enough usually, but they just don't know often how to do a polished script or a good job in editing. I will go and see it, probably more than once, and hope that if they do the the other books, that it improves each time. Why am I not in charge? Then it would be perfect!
s0nicdeathmonkey: apologies for the godwin, but
by systemsbroom
Nov 28th, 2007
01:17:30 PM
secular humanism is a pretty big tent. Sure, it includes deists like Emmerson and Jefferson, but also arguably the German political leadership circa 1930-45. Point being that a group's credo isn't an innoculation for or against genocide or other forms of human-on-human nastiness. Also, does anyone want to discuss the books/movie?
Omar
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
01:24:25 PM
"If it can't be proven, it must be thrown out..."
"I live on fact not faith divorced from all proof."

But can you PROOOOOVE you live like that? Can you prove to me what you had for breakfast on August 12, 2003? Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck...

I'm just bustin' your chops, man. Don't hurt me! But some things cannot be "proven." We must then rely on the testimony of credible witnesses.

Credible witnesses for the easter bunny = 0. Credible witnesses for those who think they have seen God work in their lives = a debate neither of us would win (though I wish I had the time to pick your brains on it, you and about three other people in this talkback...)
Oh, yeah, and before I really, REALLY leave...
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
01:26:32 PM
I plan on seeing the movie. the effects look killer, Kidman never hurts the eyes, and at the very least, I'm guessing it will provoke some debate...cheers!
"stated goal is to destroy the Catholic Church"
by newc0253
Nov 28th, 2007
01:31:54 PM
who the fuck cares?

the Catholic League is its own worst enemy, because nothing is gonna make them look stupider than campaigning against this movie. if the church is so weak that a hollywood adaptation of a fantasy trilogy is enough to bring it down, then maybe it deserves what it gets.

my complaint with Pullman's 3rd book isn't its atheism - i was looking forward to a decent war on heaven from the beginning - my problem was the sophomoric nature of the story, and the way it ruined what was otherwise a promising series.

Everyone knows it by now...?
by Heckles
Nov 28th, 2007
01:32:30 PM
Never heard of the Golden Compass before I saw the movie poster here. Not everyone reads fantasy books, chump style.
Amadeo
by micturatingbenjamin
Nov 28th, 2007
01:36:57 PM
What it does definitely boil down to is the testimony of credible witnesses...which is what the men who followed Christ implored all to do after his assumption into Heaven. If the people I've encountered...not just at one time recently, but over and over during the years, my years of belief that is, are the 'credible witnesses' you'd use....I feel comfortable standing where I do on the issue.

I was asked, 'Would Jesus come to your church?' when I was younger, and I answered 'Not at all.' For this, I was rebuked by the teachers of the school (a Baptist Middle School) and not asked the reasoning behind my answer which was "Christ abhorred the buildings filled with public worshipers who couldn't manage simple decency and understanding for one another."

There's no credible proof for Johnny Appleseed, though he seems like a good guy, I wouldn't base a life philosophy around his teachings of being cool with people and plant trees wherever you go. Though, you could do a lot worse than that as your guiding faith.

Many DO a lot worse than that all the damned time.

rock-me Amodeo
by Omar B
Nov 28th, 2007
01:44:15 PM
"But some things cannot be "proven." We must then rely on the testimony of credible witnesses." Yeah, things that did not happen or are not true cannot be proven. My dad's a scientist, my step dad is an economist and my mother's a banker. I see facts and figures, not filtered through fantacies I want to think are real. For peopel who think god has worked in their lives there's this line "god helps those who help themselves." That's the great cop-out, if you work hard and do something great it's not your achievement, it's god who did it. While if you do something wrong, you own that sin alone. The footprints in the sand are my own, no one carried me as much as the church would like to say that, it would prove human achievement hollow.
Wounded Spirit---Heh...
by micturatingbenjamin
Nov 28th, 2007
01:47:32 PM
Amodeo, this is my last post on this subject for this thread I suppose...but there was no singular or group of Christians who 'damaged' my faith.

It was a process as natural as erosion...An ever plodding crush of my faith under the weight of the fallacies of the church, and refusal to acknowledge things like evolution or understanding of other faiths...

Things like watching a man in our church arrested for molesting children set free, while the kindest woman I ever met was eaten alive by cancer during the same time. Taking things in stride seems to be the goal of religion, and while the woman was sentenced to die by her biological malady, she never once complained about death or the unfairness of her being struck down by the kind, loving God who allowed that monster to go free.

Lack of logic and reason became stultifying, faith overriding common experience and actual fact became irritating, and the same faces would flood the churches I went to...the few smattering true believers in Christ's message, among the vast sea of people just looking for a direction for their life, and finding it easier to believe in the invisible rather than owning up to their own damned problems.

My spirit's fine, if you could call my entity a soul or spirit. But when I look back on my faith, not once was it ever proven to me by my own witness. So, there you have it. Fact eventually eroded Faith, and I accepted the absence of God with a sigh of relief, and now live my life without the need to approve my actions against a rulebook written a long time ago by a man who spoke to the invisible.

And there, I can take pride in knowing I'M doing good. I'M choosing to be a good person, and not doing it out of fear of punishment by an all-powerful gremlin, or guilt or hope of reward...I get to take all the glory for my achievements, and I get to accept all my failures for what they are; my own deficiencies. Amadeo, have a good one.

Omar - clue in
by Harry Crevice
Nov 28th, 2007
01:55:14 PM
"Yeah, things that did not happen or are not true cannot be proven." You're completely missing the point. I think what he was saying is that some things can't be proven empirically, like a scientist would. I can't prove Nixon was president. Theres no experiment I can do, and observe, and repeat, that proves Nixon was president. But I could talk to people who knew him, and read books, and stuff. Show me a fact or figure you didn't directly perform and I'll show you relying on a "credible witness." The debate would be over who you and Amadeo would consider credible.
Harry C
by Omar B
Nov 28th, 2007
02:04:23 PM
Prove Nixon existed scientifically through his DNA in his grave. Also through the people who knew him. Though the records of his time in government sure I can prove he existed. I can't do the same with something that does not exist. I'm not trying to change anyone's belief system here man, I just can't accept something, anything that there's no proof of existing.
How about No Hell?
by Messyjoe
Nov 28th, 2007
02:05:01 PM
In book 3 Lyra leads the dead out of Hell. Surely this is as anti-Catholic it gets! After all, scaring people to behave or they go to Hell, won't work anymore.
But that's the point.
by Harry Crevice
Nov 28th, 2007
02:18:19 PM
Soon or later, you find a person in history whose body you can't exhume, and then you find yourself having to rely on testimony. I can't speak for science, but thats how the legal system works. Expert testimony. You can you can't accept it for something that doesn't exist, but you talk like you're rejecting the proof because you've already decided the outcome. According to you, Paul Revere could not exist. The fact that you played on a certain playground or made out with a certain girl never happened, if you can't find your DNA on that playground (or on that girl). But can YOUR testimony be beleived? If we, the people, find you credible, then yes. But if we don't, then we reject many events in your life, in everyone lives because they cannot be "proven." Yet they happened. Your definition of proof exludes much of reality from existing. And what i'm saying is that the proof of God, and many other things, relies solely on testimony, in the legal sense. just food for thought.
Incidentally
by Harry Crevice
Nov 28th, 2007
02:20:56 PM
I couldn't give a damn about what either of you believe. Im just a fan of critical thinking.

by Omar B
Nov 28th, 2007
02:25:34 PM
So you are saying that truth is a matter of numbers believing it not imperical proof? If they can prove a body in the desert is King Tut and the swirls out in the sky are galaxies forming and collapsing then yes, thing that are physical, have form and exist can be proven and tested imperially. As I said man, show me the proof that there's a real christian god and and I'll accept it.
Unless we're talking about The Talisman
by skimn
Nov 28th, 2007
02:31:15 PM
all these "kids on a mythical quest" flicks look the same to me. Did TNT totally give up on Talisman??
What have we learned today?
by leobloom
Nov 28th, 2007
02:36:51 PM
A movie rumors website isn't the place to go for deep, theological discussions.
Series7
by Captain Mal
Nov 28th, 2007
02:51:58 PM
"Any religion is wrong when it starts to say we are right you are wrong."[P] Do you not see that you've just done the very thing you're attempting to condemn? You even used common phraseology to describe both instances, dork (i.e., "wrong"). [P] It is the very nature of religion (and every other worldview) to believe in it's own "rightness," and, therefore, others' "wrongness." You may as well say that religion is just fine as long as nobody actually believes it. Interestingly, I feel the same way about antitheism, capitalism, post-modernism and mo-cap technology. [P] The point is, don't patronize theists with condescension unless you want them to react exactly the way they have been since the rise of popular secularism. Treat 'em like three-year-olds who believe in fairy tales, and they're very likely gonna throw a tantrum.
Hey s0nicdeathmonkey
by diverdan
Nov 28th, 2007
02:55:31 PM
Wondering how you figure that Anna would "know at least one priest who has raped a child." You do realize that 10 percent is not that big a number don't you? With about 90 percent not having raped a child don't you think it's far more likely that she would NOT know a priest who had committed rape?
diverdan
by NoodlesHahn
Nov 28th, 2007
03:10:47 PM
I think sOnicdeathmonkey came to that conclusion because if you've been going to church your entire life then you've easily seen at least ten priests. Obviously you would know plenty of priests that are not child molestors but chances are one of 'em is.

I'm an atheist and I've known more than ten priests.
Phillip Pullman & Richard Dawkins sitting in a tree...
by HarryBlackPotter
Nov 28th, 2007
03:14:03 PM
...K.I.S.S.I.N.G. I have enormous respect for both of this god-haters. I do however wonder at what point they realised religion was the root of all evil? Maybe it was when they where made to fallate a Catholic priest when they were altar boys. I was turned me off religion the day my local vicar was rushed to hospital with a large wooden cross up his ass. He said he was inspired by The Last Temptation of Christ and wanted to suffer for the lord, but he didn't know someone at Blockbuster had put the wrong movie in the DVD box and he'd actually been watching The Exorcist. Let Jesus fuck you!
Honk iF you're Jesus!!
by Calimist
Nov 28th, 2007
03:21:30 PM
Extraordinary claims...
by Calimist
Nov 28th, 2007
03:27:28 PM
require extraordinary evidence--C.S.
One bad apple...
by Tourist
Nov 28th, 2007
03:32:22 PM
...Boy...You should Google the history of the Catholic church. You got a fuckin' rotten fruit store there. Thats completely aside from the child slavery and worldwide baby raping. I do agree with their decision to boycott though. Its preferable to have halfwit loonies just not go, rather than have them burn down cinemas(india) or have films locked away from public consumption(Australia). Just because a movie is Anti-religion doesn't mean its a sign of hate or dsicrimination. It just means someone is pointing out that your belief system is wrong. Being the weak willed, slightly stupid individuals that you are, you freak out when you realise you live in a house of cards. "if God were that weak willed and anemic, who would ever care to follow?" I don't know. I asked myself these questions when I was about 5-7 and realised what a crock of shit it all was, like Santa and the Easter Bunny. Have you even read your bible? His incessant low self esteem lashing out at humanity does get on your nerves after awhile. As for the free thought and close minded aspect of religion, as usual, the adherent is only half to blame. The church very much, most certainly, is opposed to free thought, or the exploration of ideas. They become particuarly wound up if any of the ideas suggest a system of living anyway opposed to their franchise. Of course, the people who blindly follow orders are guilty of not having the will or sense to question this absolute authority. 10 percent is a huge number for an organisation. People were especially angry that the other 90 per cent covered it up. Besides people need to stop getting hung up on the pervert priest thing. Yes, its been a world wide problem for hundreds of years, and will continue to be, but its just one more issue on a very large stack for the catholic church. Yeah, being expelled from catholic school at the age of 6 may have tainted my views a little.
What happened to Sam Raimi's
by Sick Fixx
Nov 28th, 2007
03:42:41 PM
adaptation of the Sword of Truth series? Development limbo, I'm guessing.
Being A Catholic
by StarTrek Apologist
Nov 28th, 2007
03:43:01 PM
Being a Catholic you should be able to discern the difference between an author commenting on the dangers of Theocratic control and your own paranoia connected to being a member of the church with the longest history of being a Theocracy in the west (yes, it was in the past, but what other Christain denomination ran all of Europe from Rome for a good stretch?). You might also give some thought to saying things about "one bad apple" and "pedophiles" - who are you, Robert Novak? It wasn't one bad apple, it was many, and the church spent millions protecting and moving these bad apples instead of asking WWJD and protecting it's young. A library card and high school reading level would shed a lot of light on your life. You might look into such easy to learn pop culture references like the Crusades, Galileo, the Spanish Inquisition, and the sudden adherence to the Prime Directive when it comes to Nazism. Are all Catholics bad? Certainly not. Is the church itself bad? Obviously it means a great deal to millions of people across the globe and offers most of them a sense of belonging and security and actually manages to help a fair share of people. Is the Catholic church also responsible for a great deal of evil and wrong doing throughout its entire history, obviously ignoring the rules laid down by the boss? Yes, and very recently. So maybe instead of trotting out the old stand by of “everyone’s out to get us” when a film comes out with talking polar bears (or wizards with a lighting bolt scar on their forehead), maybe engage your brain before opening your mouth (or typing… you know what I mean).
Open Minded?
by bythehairofsanjaya
Nov 28th, 2007
03:48:47 PM
Accepting mutually exclusive and conflicting world views is not being open minded - it's called being insane.
rating
by m2298
Nov 28th, 2007
03:50:23 PM
The film's been rated PG-13, for "sequences of fantasy violence".
Terry Goodkind
by Omar B
Nov 28th, 2007
03:50:39 PM
I'm glad someone brought up The Sword Of Truth. Last I heard it's still in development. Just finished reading the last book Confessor, awesome.
Captain Mal
by Series7
Nov 28th, 2007
03:59:45 PM
You bring up a good point. Never thought of it that way, I was just mad and wanted to fling poo. I am just upset that this group has a lot of swaying power for movies it shows interest in and not, what they need to do is put up a sort of non biased site like Children in mind. And call it god in mind and let people know how anit budda a movie is put but only by pointing out the instinces in the movie where their is blasphamy. And let the STRONGER KISS army generals view that site and see if the weaker privates can handle such a movie themselves without exploding in disbielef. Instead of just telling everyone not to see it. And yeah you SAY talk to theists like they three year olds, but I'd rather not talk to them at all it always ends up in the never ending circle of conversation. Where in the end the essectially is not right and wrong in this universe just want you want to believe is right and wrong. I mean how do we know that we were put on this earth just to kill each other? Or as George Calin put it, How do we know that our only purpose in life was to create plastic so once we all die the earth will just incorporate it into a natural resource.
Wow, Three Posts Before We Got To The Fighting
by skoobyx
Nov 28th, 2007
04:08:17 PM
....that what I hate about TB's lately.
You should come over to the AICN COMICS talkback, then...
by rock-me Amodeo
Nov 28th, 2007
04:14:49 PM
We're a lot nicer over there. Mostly. Usually.
Pippi Longstocking...
by elvine
Nov 28th, 2007
04:15:08 PM
was also written by an atheist, micturatingbenjamin.
New ending makes sense IMO
by Mazzke
Nov 28th, 2007
04:57:40 PM
The studios did not commit to a 3 movie deal, so I think it made sense for them to leave out the final few scenes of the book. If they decide not to make the other two, it's better that we have a story with a beginning, middle and end rather than a story with a beginning, middle and cliffhanger.

The one thing that I don't like is that they seemed to have unnecessarily changed some of the details of the book. For example, in the written version, Lyra's doesn't have the only alethiometer. There are actually three of them out there, one of which is with the Magisterium (the bad guys). The only significance of Lyra having one is that she seems to have some sort of intuitive ability to instantly communicate questions to the alethiometer and interpret its answers. In contrast, the other alethiometers are all operated by scholars that have devoted their entire life to understanding how to use it. Those scholars might take days to ask a question and interpret the answer, whereas Lyla can do it in seconds.
"f you use this call me Skillet. signed-Johnny K"
by finky089
Nov 28th, 2007
04:59:29 PM
- best part of the whole thing

ha ha

Hmm, I'm worried now
by MattmanReturns
Nov 28th, 2007
05:01:35 PM
How is this film going to work without the ending? The book had a perfect setup ending. Can't imagine it without that. Oh well, I'll still see it for Nicole.
AICN talkbacks vs the real World
by finky089
Nov 28th, 2007
05:05:17 PM
In AICN talkbacks, Star Wars vs LOTR and Baybashing garner more ill words and vehemence than religious viewpoints.

In the real world, nobody gives a rat's ass about which fantasy movie is better and instead blow each other up over reglious viewpoints.

Xiphos- they have opposable thumbs
by finky089
Nov 28th, 2007
05:07:07 PM
actually they just asked them kindly and- viola! polar bears in armor.
"a beginning, middle and cliffhanger"
by newc0253
Nov 28th, 2007
05:19:04 PM
except the ending to the first book isn't a cliffhanger. it's simply indicating that the story continues onwards. even if the studio doesn't make the next two, it's a perfectly reasonable ending. p.s. clockwork orange wasn't banned by the censors in the UK but Kubrick pressured Warner Bros to withdraw the film from distribution there. Warners agreed so for over 27 years later when Kubrick died, it was impossible to get distribution rights to screen the film in the UK. crazy, huh?
M-o-M, that was my point exactly
by finky089
Nov 28th, 2007
05:31:33 PM